Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Penn

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Isn't the partisanship the real problem some people have with him - that he tips the court conservative for years if not decades to come. Any conservative being put forward would see attacks as he is replacing a swing seat with a solid conservative.

It just feels like everything is being thrown at him in order to delay confirmation after mid term when the Dems will be likely able to block the appointment.

Partisanship definitely plays a part, but not as much as likely perjury and possible history of sexual assault. The Reps previous Supreme Court nomination (Gorsuch) was voted through without issue even after McConnell and the Reps essentially stole that nomination from the Democrats (as the seat became vacant during Obama's presidency and since the Reps controlled the Senate, refused to proceed with his nominee).

But Kavanaugh being a conservative is less of an issue than the fact that during his hearing, he made it very clear that he is completely biased and will likely act in a partisan manner, rather than being impartial. Even conservative justices in the past have often voted against their own conservative nature because they're following the law and the constitution, not their own beliefs. Kavanaugh has shown he may not be capable of doing the same.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Isn't the partisanship the real problem some people have with him - that he tips the court conservative for years if not decades to come. Any conservative being put forward would see attacks as he is replacing a swing seat with a solid conservative.

It just feels like everything is being thrown at him in order to delay confirmation after mid term when the Dems will be likely able to block the appointment.

Not so fast... extreme partisanship; back in good ol' 2003 even Senate Republicans were concerned about his ability to judge without displaying extreme partisanship. That's different than being a conservative appointee, it shows an inability (or unwillingness) to carry out ones functions as a judge.

If Kavanaugh wasn't Trump's choice because of his feelings on indictment of a sitting President, the Republicans would have pulled his nomination, replaced him with another conservative appointee and they'd have their seat filled.

Remember, the established law of the land is that there is no question that a sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes whilst in office, but can potentially be indicted for crimes committed prior to taking office; Kavanaugh is in an extreme minority of judges and legal scholars who disagrees with this and believes that (for some unexplained reason) a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime past or present.

Penn

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Remember, the established law of the land is that there is no question that a sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes whilst in office, but can potentially be indicted for crimes committed prior to taking office; Kavanaugh is in an extreme minority of judges and legal scholars who disagrees with this and believes that (for some unexplained reason) a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime past or present.

Isn't his reasoning simply that "He's too busy being President" or did I misread that somewhere (or possibly didn't realise it was a joke because it's so hard to tell these days)

Edit: Yeah basically that it would distract the President from carrying out their duties, and would reduce credibility on the world stage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.6fb10a58d1aa

But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military. Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.

Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, ‘no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated — whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.’ The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

But he does say in such cases, statutes of limitation should be extended so they can still be indicted after their presidency ends.

StringerBell

In news that I am sure shocks us all, Trump and Kim did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is shared by two worthy Anti-Sexual Violence activists which is pretty poignant today imho

Congrats to Dr. Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad.

StringerBell

Penn wrote: »

Isn't his reasoning simply that "He's too busy being President" or did I misread that somewhere (or possibly didn't realise it was a joke because it's so hard to tell these days)

Edit: Yeah basically that it would distract the President from carrying out their duties, and would reduce credibility on the world stage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.6fb10a58d1aa


But he does say in such cases, statutes of limitation should be extended so they can still be indicted after their presidency ends.

When Kavanaugh was initially nominated I looked into him a lot, I couldn't find too much that would spell the end of the world for the US (obviously he is conservative) or anything like that and felt he wasn't actually the worst choice, from this administration, probably the best that the liberals could have expected really. Now Mitch Mconnell reportedly disagrees with me there, but he didn't get to make the call.

His actions since then have caused me to reconsider my position on that, he has displayed some very clear red flags that should be disqualifying from the position. There is no shortage of judges qualified for the position so then you have to dig into why him? Whats so special that they are determined to ram him through when he is obviously not the best candidate or in any way special from the list (the original list he wasn't even part of)

So maybe you do have to come back to his views on Presidential powers and give it more credence than I did on the first look over him. Is it that? Or is Trump just being Trump and refusing to give an inch (unless he absolutely has to of course) and ramming his choice down peoples throat because he will not take what he sees as a loss here?

Whatever the reason, forgetting all about the sexual assault allegations, the man at this point has had many prominent parties now come out against his appointment, for his behaviour and temperment rather than anything else. If you conducted a job interview in the manner he did I am pretty sure you would not be getting the job.

This is the highest court in the land, the people who sit on it are supposed to be scrutinized more than pretty much anybody else in the country and if there are stains on character or red flags on someones ability to be judicially impartial (doesn't matter if you lean left or right, you do need balance, too much either way harms the country) then the obvious thing to do is move on to the next candidate.

Brett Kavanaugh, like everybody else, has no entitlement to the position. This is a very dark period for the US, shows no actual sign of abating yet either.

Captain Obvious

StringerBell wrote: »

In news that I am sure shocks us all, Trump and Kim did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is shared by two worthy Anti-Sexual Violence activists which is pretty poignant today imho

Congrats to Dr. Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad.

Wouldn't be surprised for Trump to announce he is withdrawing the US from the awards.

Penn

I thought Kavanaugh was on the list provided to Trump by the Federalist Society, but someone said yesterday he wasn't. Any of those on the list would have likely been accepted by the Reps as being conservative enough for them, and the Dems probably wouldn't have found anything which could have stopped their nomination.

Yet if Trump went out of his way to nominate Kavanaugh, against McConnell's wishes, we have to look at what distinguishes Kavanaugh from the others, and the only thing most can see is his previous comments regarding whether a sitting President can be indicted. He's clearly on the record with his opinions on that, and I'm guessing his meeting with Trump just confirmed that.

Timberrrrrrrr

StringerBell wrote: »

In news that I am sure shocks us all, Trump and Kim did not win the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is shared by two worthy Anti-Sexual Violence activists which is pretty poignant today imho

Congrats to Dr. Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad.

His Twitter should be interesting over the next few days, I wonder who he will blame?

MrMusician18

Penn wrote: »

I thought Kavanaugh was on the list provided to Trump by the Federalist Society, but someone said yesterday he wasn't. Any of those on the list would have likely been accepted by the Reps as being conservative enough for them, and the Dems probably wouldn't have found anything which could have stopped their nomination.

Yet if Trump went out of his way to nominate Kavanaugh, against McConnell's wishes, we have to look at what distinguishes Kavanaugh from the others, and the only thing most can see is his previous comments regarding whether a sitting President can be indicted. He's clearly on the record with his opinions on that, and I'm guessing his meeting with Trump just confirmed that.

But if legal opinion generally thinks that a sitting president can be indicted for crimes before the presidency and his opinion is a radical departure from the norm - then he will be a lone voice in the SC.

If not then the sitting conservative justices are just as partisan when it counts.

TomOnBoard

Penn wrote: »

I thought Kavanaugh was on the list provided to Trump by the Federalist Society, but someone said yesterday he wasn't. Any of those on the list would have likely been accepted by the Reps as being conservative enough for them, and the Dems probably wouldn't have found anything which could have stopped their nomination.

Yet if Trump went out of his way to nominate Kavanaugh, against McConnell's wishes, we have to look at what distinguishes Kavanaugh from the others, and the only thing most can see is his previous comments regarding whether a sitting President can be indicted. He's clearly on the record with his opinions on that, and I'm guessing his meeting with Trump just confirmed that.

NBC reported some weeks ago that retiring Justice Kennedy had only retired when he got assurances that Kavanaugh (who had clerked for him) would be nominated to replace him.

everlast75

I knew, from the first time he opened his mouth and uttered this complete and utter BS statement, that he was a patsy.

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH:

Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No President has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

Penn

MrMusician18 wrote: »

But if legal opinion generally thinks that a sitting president can be indicted for crimes before the presidency and his opinion is a radical departure from the norm - then he will be a lone voice in the SC.

If not then the sitting conservative justices are just as partisan when it counts.

He won't be a lone voice, as there has always been disagreement on whether it's possible or not, it's just never been tested before. Some say yes, some say no. The fact that Kavanaugh's opinion on the matter was known before his appointment, and given that the President is now an un-indicted co-conspirator to a crime (and was likely to be at the time of Kavanaugh's nomination) makes it possible that Kavanaugh was nominated on the basis that it could help swing the decision in Trump's favour if it comes down to it.

Though as TomOnBoard says, if Justice Kennedy resigned on the basis that Kavanaugh would be nominated to replace him, that also factors heavily into it too, though Trump wouldn't have needed to stand by that agreement once Justice Kennedy had already resigned. Trump could have still nominated someone else.

SimonTemplar

What does it say about the integrity of the confirmation process that a person who commits perjury while advocating that he is suitable for the supreme court, gets promoted to the supreme court.

TomOnBoard

Penn wrote: »

He won't be a lone voice, as there has always been disagreement on whether it's possible or not, it's just never been tested before. Some say yes, some say no. The fact that Kavanaugh's opinion on the matter was known before his appointment, and given that the President is now an un-indicted co-conspirator to a crime (and was likely to be at the time of Kavanaugh's nomination) makes it possible that Kavanaugh was nominated on the basis that it could help swing the decision in Trump's favour if it comes down to it.

Though as TomOnBoard says, if Justice Kennedy resigned on the basis that Kavanaugh would be nominated to replace him, that also factors heavily into it too, though Trump wouldn't have needed to stand by that agreement once Justice Kennedy had already resigned. Trump could have still nominated someone else.

If there is truth in the reports that Kavanaugh was favoured by Kennedy, then perhaps it speaks to Kavanaugh not being considered by Kennedy to be as 'hard-right' as has been suggested by his opponents. Kennedy was/is no fool and, although a Reagan nominee, was considered to have been a 'swing vote'/centrist/progressive on the Court. Its hard to see him arguing for someone who would be much more right-wing to replace himself. By all accounts, if the Kav nomination fails, the next nominee could be more conservative again (maybe someone like Notre Dame's Barrett).

BoJack Horseman

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If there is truth in the reports that Kavanaugh was favoured by Kennedy, then perhaps it speaks to Kavanaugh not being considered by Kennedy to be as 'hard-right' as has been suggested by his opponents..

He only became "hard right" the moment 'De Resistenzzzz' got him in their sights.

Danzy

Hard right, far right ,fascist etc are debased terms.

Over applied , causally thrown out at people.

Non conformity with the expectations of a very vocal and small niches is usually enough.

Inquitus

Bookies odds of a No confirmation have climbed back up since yesterday to stand at 21%

StringerBell

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If there is truth in the reports that Kavanaugh was favoured by Kennedy, then perhaps it speaks to Kavanaugh not being considered by Kennedy to be as 'hard-right' as has been suggested by his opponents. Kennedy was/is no fool and, although a Reagan nominee, was considered to have been a 'swing vote'/centrist/progressive on the Court. Its hard to see him arguing for someone who would be much more right-wing to replace himself. By all accounts, if the Kav nomination fails, the next nominee could be more conservative again (maybe someone like Notre Dame's Barrett).

Kennedy's reputation as a swing vote is overstated quite often imo

Edit: don't take my word for it, go search for the information yourself even.

Professor Moriarty

Danzy wrote: »

Hard right, far right ,fascist etc are debased terms.

Over applied , causally thrown out at people.

Non conformity with the expectations of a very vocal and small niches is usually enough.

Conservative, very conservative or arch-conservative are much more accurate descriptions in this particular situation.

MrMusician18

Penn wrote: »

He won't be a lone voice, as there has always been disagreement on whether it's possible or not, it's just never been tested before. Some say yes, some say no. The fact that Kavanaugh's opinion on the matter was known before his appointment, and given that the President is now an un-indicted co-conspirator to a crime (and was likely to be at the time of Kavanaugh's nomination) makes it possible that Kavanaugh was nominated on the basis that it could help swing the decision in Trump's favour if it comes down to it.

Though as TomOnBoard says, if Justice Kennedy resigned on the basis that Kavanaugh would be nominated to replace him, that also factors heavily into it too, though Trump wouldn't have needed to stand by that agreement once Justice Kennedy had already resigned. Trump could have still nominated someone else.

Freudian slippers above stated that kavanaughs position on whether or not he can be indicted as a sitting president puts him in the minority of legal scholars.

If it's such an offbeat position then he will be alone on the SC with regards to it.

So the problem is really that he's just as partisan as any other judge on the SC.

robinph

This could be some misplaced punctuation, but the line about PJ Smyth states that the FBI proved that Kavanaugh lied.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45693211

BBC News wrote:

Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate who alleges Judge Kavanaugh exposed his genitals to her during a college party
Mark Judge, a childhood friend of Judge Kavanaugh, who Prof Ford testified was in the room during the alleged assault
Leland Keyser, Prof Ford's high school friend who was reportedly at the summer of 1982 party where the alleged assault occurred
PJ Smyth, another high school friend of Judge Kavanaugh, who says Prof Ford was at the July party
Timothy Gaudette, another high school friend of the judge's at whose house the party reportedly occurred
Christopher "Squi" Garrett, a close friend of Judge Kavanaugh, Prof Ford says she dated him for a few months in high school

If that line is accurate then absolutely no one should be voting for him regardless of any political leanings.

everlast75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Conservative, very conservative or arch-conservative are much more accurate descriptions in this particular situation.

Fibber, liar or damn liar would be even better...

RIGOLO

everlast75 wrote: »

Fibber, liar or damn liar would be even better...

Or one could say he is a man who has undergone 7 FBI investigations and come thru all of them cleanly.

SimonTemplar

Trump has accused the two people who cornered Flake to be paid professionals and then ended his tweet bizarrely saying that the signs weren't made in a basement from love. It just so crazy at this stage.

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

Or one could say he is a man who has undergone 7 FBI "investigations" and come thru all of them cleanly.

And not one lie detector test.

At the hearing Kavanaugh said he’d be willing to do whatever the Judiciary Committee wanted, but added that polygraphs can’t be used in federal court because “they’re not reliable.”

Kavanaugh wrote in 2016, in an unanimous opinion for the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., finding that the Defense Department could withhold reports about whether lie detector tests were effective under the federal public records law, and said they were an “important law enforcement tool.”

“The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Anyhoo, enough of Kavanaugh's hypocrisy, and more from Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1048196883464818688

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/01/donald-trump-campaign-announcement-actors-fec

The above article says he paid $50 to have people cheer him on... and in true Donny Bankrupt Style, he didn't pay his Bill

RobertKK

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.

#IBelieveHer because I am gullible and unquestioning...lots of ??? over CBF.

Stallingrad

everlast75 wrote: »

Anyhoo, enough of Kavanaugh's hypocrisy, and more from Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1048196883464818688

The man is constantly at war with his own citizens. If you are not part of his narrow base and world view then you are the enemy. He has no concept of what a President is or how to tolerate diffenerces. Why are people falling for this? America has become a shadow of what it was.

StringerBell

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152



#IBelieveHer because I am gullible and unquestioning...lots of ??? over CBF.

Whether you believe her or not should not actually be the standard when judging a man's fitness for a job.

Also, and I only ask this because twice I've noticed out have used the wsj as your source material. Are you surprised that they have the opposite spin to a liberal, non Murdoch owned media?

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152



#IBelieveHer because I am gullible and unquestioning...lots of ??? over CBF.

we have witnesses on both sides contradicting each other.

If only the FBI could have spoken to the 40+ people who wanted to talk with them, instead of being curtailed on two fronts.

If you, like others here, thinks that the investigation by the FBI was full and thorough, I have a pile of magic beans to sell you.

everlast75

Stallingrad wrote: »

The man is constantly at war with his own citizens. If you are not part of his narrow base and world view then you are the enemy. He has no concept of what a President is or how to tolerate diffenerces. Why are people falling for this? America has become a shadow of what it was.

Indeed.

Women shouting and roaring? Over emotional, unstable.

A SCOTUS nominee shouting and roaring? Under unnecessary pressure and misunderstood.